Integrating stakeholder agency theory with the instrumental corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature, this study explores how award-winning CEOs consider personal interests and balance competing stakeholder demands when they decide between external and internal CSR, or CSR focus. Using a difference-in-differences research design, we find that after winning a prestigious media award, CEOs engage in more external CSR, which is more visible to the public, and less internal CSR, which is less likely to attract public attention. We find that such an (...) influence on CSR focus is more salient for award-winning CEOs with lower stock ownership (i.e. a stronger self-serving motivation) than for CEOs with higher stock ownership. Furthermore, we explore the role of stakeholder salience in modifying award-winning CEOs’ decisions about CSR focus. When external stakeholder salience is higher (e.g. higher media coverage), award-winning CEOs' manipulation of CSR focus by increasing external CSR and decreasing internal CSR is more salient. However, such effects can be dampened when internal stakeholder salience is higher (e.g. higher human capital intensity). Our study contributes to the instrumental CSR literature by demonstrating the underlying processes and boundary conditions of how awards affect CEOs' balance of stakeholder salience. (shrink)

This study investigates the distinct and joint effects of corporate social performance, firm size, and visibility on a company’s decision to disclose sustainability-related information through sustainability reports. It seeks to provide more nuanced explanations for why certain companies tend to extensively report on their sustainability performance. First, while prior studies have predominantly focused on environmental reporting, the current analysis considers comprehensive sustainability reports that include both environmental and social issues. Second, the article argues that the effects of two important antecedents (...) of legitimacy pressure—firm size and organizational visibility—should be analyzed separately rather than restricting the analysis on the effects of legitimacy pressure per se. Third, it argues that the hypothesized effects are nonlinear because the marginal costs and benefits of sustainability reporting vary with a company’s CSP level, its size, and its visibility in the public. Finally, although there is a strong link between CSP and sustainability reporting, the strength of this link depends on its size and visibility. The study of 280 companies in environmentally and socially sensitive industries provides considerable support for these hypotheses, including evidence that size and visibility independently affect sustainability reporting and that the shape of the CSP/sustainability reporting link is contingent upon firm size and visibility. (shrink)

Prior research suggests that voluntary environmental governance mechanisms operate to enhance a firm’s environmental legitimacy as opposed to being a driver of proactive environmental performance activities. To understand how these mechanisms contribute to the firm’s environmental legitimacy, we investigate whether environmental corporate governance characteristics are associated with voluntary environmental disclosure. We examine an increasingly important attribute of a firm’s disclosure setting, namely the disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) information. GHG information represents proprietary non-financial information about the firm’s exposure to environmental (...) concerns and is related to the firm’s operations and future profitability. Thus, we expect governance participants would view such information as a potentially important strategic device for managing stakeholders’ demands for information concerning environmental risks. We find that the presence of an environmental committee and a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) is positively associated with the likelihood of GHG disclosure and that CSOs are associated with disclosure transparency. Further analysis reveals that the likelihood of disclosure is associated with committee size, number of committee meetings, expertise of committee members and CSO, and overlap between the environmental committee and audit committee. Only expertise of the environmental committee members and the CSO are associated with GHG disclosure transparency, while larger committees tend to be associated with lower transparency. Our results are particularly important to those with interests in evaluating the potential role that corporate governance mechanisms play in responding to stakeholder concerns about environmental risks. Directors and officers who are considering appointment to similar governance positions, may wish to consider what attributes would make such governance positions more influential. (shrink)

This article examines whether economic performance could affect EID and how the relationship is determined by the form of ownership from voluntarism to regulation under the current Chinese context. In this study, our empirical results show that the relationship between firms’ performance and EID is complex and the interactive impact of ownership and economic performance on EID significantly varies from voluntary disclosure to mandatory disclosure. This study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the motivations in corporate EID. The performance–impression theory (...) can be used to explain the disclosure behaviors during the period of voluntary disclosure, while the pressure–legitimacy theory can be used during the period of mandatory disclosure. The finding suggests that when evaluating corporate EID associated with economic performance in emerging economies such as China, it needs to be cautious, as which tends to vary with the form of ownership and whether there is any mandatory regulation in place. (shrink)